D&D 5E Arguing for Advantage

[Norton]

You got something against skilled play??

Enjoyable thread. And yeah, it's a balance. In the case I described, it's more about power-gaming and how it hurts the session. I govern so that the game maintains its joy, and that includes allowing a fair amount of meta gaming and conversation. I do the thing where, if you've picked a lock on a dungeon door two times in a row, you no longer have to roll for lock picking because you've mastered these doors (unless you run into a different kind of door). I wave away all sorts of minor stuff to keep momentum, as I find pacing important to the enjoyment over hard adherence to the rules and instilling fear. Again, balance. But then along comes a guy with strap-on wings who essentially tries to avoid playing. That's not skilled playing, that's him against the DM – a DM who just spent several hours putting something together for him to enjoy and who understands what it means to, once again, maintain balance and isn't out to kill you.

 

[Norton]

It sounds like the issue isn't so much with a flying PC as it is with certain player behaviors that are impacting gameplay. Scouting ahead is a normal part of play and shouldn't be unusual in a D&D context or take up a lot of time or spotlight. If anything flying just speeds it up. Especially with a VTT. If the player is taking an unfair amount of spotlight for whatever reason, then that's deserving of a conversation about how to share spotlight more equitably in a way that still allows the player to engage in smart play.

Adding a tree or a ceiling or fog or an overhanging rock or whatever is part of presenting a believable world - which makes the game more immersive, not less - and is not simply a contrivance to confound a flying PC. It just so happens these things can be a challenge for said PCs. Many DMs in my experience, with flying PCs or not, don't give us much thought about the terrain and its impact on the scene as they could.

As far as portraying aarakocra, I don't make it my business to tell other people how they should portray their characters. They can be as normal or weird as they want. And I don't see how "free flight" is any reason that a PC must be portrayed in any particular way. But hey, if you want the players to portray characters in particular ways, there's always personal characteristics and Inspiration mechanics.

My entire position has been with certain player behaviors and how a certain race attracts that kind of player. By all means scout ahead, just not for everything at every turn, keeping other plays sitting idly by, and fully expect a detailed blueprint of everything ahead of the other players. I am not making an argument against scouting, I'm making an argument against being annoying.

And yes, adding terrain and the like can keep flyers under wraps but it breaks immersion if you have to keep pointing out a new obstacle and everyone knows why you're doing it. Again, it refers to the power gaming problem. I would rather avoid the issue entirely in the future by maintaining the race as a monster only. I could be wrong, but it's rare in that regard. I'm not saying it's the only race that is also a monster, but it's rare and I think for a reason.

And I'm not making it my business to tell anyone how to play anything, but if you're going to pick an Aarakocra as your character, I'm now instantly suspicious of you because of the kind of player in my experience that picks them. That flying is free for them is beautiful, but I prefer flying cost something in order to keep the above described behavior to a minimum.

Lastly and most importantly, if you are a bird you a) have a beak and b) have no humanoid genitalia. Stop trying to be romantic hero.*

*Joking. Mostly.

 

[iserith]

My entire position has been with certain player behaviors and how a certain race attracts that kind of player. By all means scout ahead, just not for everything at every turn, keeping other plays sitting idly by, and fully expect a detailed blueprint of everything ahead of the other players. I am not making an argument against scouting, I'm making an argument against being annoying.

Right, so we're in agreement that it's player behavior that is the issue, not the tactic and in my view not the race.

I still find the notion that a tree blocking one's view is somehow problematic to be a strange one. Does your setting have no trees or the like?

 

[Norton]

Right, so we're in agreement that it's player behavior that is the issue, not the tactic and in my view not the race.

I still find the notion that a tree blocking one's view is somehow problematic to be a strange one. Does your setting have no trees or the like?

It is the race in the sense that it seems to attract the kind of behavior I'm describing more than other races because of the jet pack. That's what I'm positing. Let me ask, when you've run a game with Aarokocra's how do your players tend to use them?

To your second question, yes, my settings have trees and hills and outcroppings and even the occasional plinth. The issue that creeps in is when I create a map, it is now clear to everyone why I am including or specifically describing structures that just happen to make it difficult for the flying player to fly. Everyone knows I am nerfing him with setting and as a result, the player with the jet pack gets miffed and feels attacked and now the entire session becomes about him or her which is exactly what they wanted in the first place just not in this way.

 

[iserith]

It is the race in the sense that it seems to attract the kind of behavior I'm describing more than other races because of the jet pack. That's what I'm positing. Let me ask, when you've run a game with Aarokocra's how do your players tend to use them?

My current campaign has an aarakocra PC in it - Beaky, a moon druid (4th level). Because it's a forest/swamp hexcrawl, most (but not all) of the challenges take place outside, so he gets to fly around a lot. His chief tactic is to fly over to where enemies are, land, and shift into a bear, tanking for the rest of the party who often fight at range since they're usually dealing with difficult terrain which slows them down from getting into melee. He calls this his "Dropbear Maneuver."

Beaky does occasionally scout out areas of interest to the party prior to them heading in. Most recently he did this to scout out an undead horde so they could figure out a way to deal with this overwhelming force and get at a treasure hoard they wanted. I dropped them on the corresponding map (on Roll20) so they could use the result of Beaky's scouting to determine a plan of attack. Because the party is always dealing with issues relating to the terrain, Beaky's player understands when I tell him that certain things are obscured by trees, swamp gas, clouds of mosquitoes, darkness, heavy rain, or the like.

Beaky also got married (via a shotgun ceremony) to a human female, one of the daughters of a moonshiner who has a caravan park a couple hexes from town. Love is love and we didn't really get into what sort of genitalia he has. Which is not to say that we don't talk about genitalia in my games which are rife with dick jokes, but rather it wasn't important to determining how Beaky "should" be portrayed.

To your second question, yes, my settings have trees and hills and outcroppings and even the occasional plinth. The issue that creeps in is when I create a map, it is now clear to everyone why I am including or specifically describing structures that just happen to make it difficult for the flying player to fly. Everyone knows I am nerfing him with setting and as a result, the player with the jet pack gets miffed and feels attacked and now the entire session becomes about him or her which is exactly what they wanted in the first place just not in this way.

"Hey, so I haven't really been making a deal of the terrain, but I think it will really enhance the strategic and tactical aspect of play, providing you with both challenges to overcome and opportunities to exploit. I'm going to start using it more for determining cover, visibility, movement, and the like. What do you think?"

 

[Norton]

My current campaign has an aarakocra PC in it - Beaky, a moon druid (4th level). Because it's a forest/swamp hexcrawl, most (but not all) of the challenges take place outside, so he gets to fly around a lot. His chief tactic is to fly over to where enemies are, land, and shift into a bear, tanking for the rest of the party who often fight at range since they're usually dealing with difficult terrain which slows them down from getting into melee. He calls this his "Dropbear Maneuver."

Beaky does occasionally scout out areas of interest to the party prior to them heading in. Most recently he did this to scout out an undead horde so they could figure out a way to deal with this overwhelming force and get at a treasure hoard they wanted. I dropped them on the corresponding map (on Roll20) so they could use the result of Beaky's scouting to determine a plan of attack. Because the party is always dealing with issues relating to the terrain, Beaky's player understands when I tell him that certain things are obscured by trees, swamp gas, clouds of mosquitoes, darkness, heavy rain, or the like.

Beaky also got married (via a shotgun ceremony) to a human female, one of the daughters of a moonshiner who has a caravan park a couple hexes from town. Love is love and we didn't really get into what sort of genitalia he has. Which is not to say that we don't talk about genitalia in my games which are rife with dick jokes, but rather it wasn't important to determining how Beaky "should" be portrayed.


"Hey, so I haven't really been making a deal of the terrain, but I think it will really enhance the strategic and tactical aspect of play, providing you with both challenges to overcome and opportunities to exploit. I'm going to start using it more for determining cover, visibility, movement, and the like. What do you think?"

Appreciate the examples. And yes, all races can be played well and to the delight of a group if the player isn't a problem. I've managed with similar tactics and there seems to be some kind of truce between the group now on what is expected. We're also in a swamp, as it happens, and various forms of cover and challenges to flying has finally been begrudgingly accepted, in large part because he still gets a lot of attention. But make no mistake, it got silly for a long awhile and old friends were under a lot of strain. Same thing with my other group. I was open to their expressing the more superhero aspects of the race, but it became a problem. Two out of two and the players had very similar personalities.

I feel like I'm repeating myself and I'm sorry if I am, but that was enough sample size for me and I don't care to deal with that again. Still, maybe an underlined caveat is more sensible than a ban in the chance I run across a player like the one in your current campaign who gets the game better: if you're going to be picking an Aarokocra as your character's race, please sell me on the idea and tell me why you want to play one. If you can't you can't, because I know what you're trying to do and nah.

Lastly, I never would hold anyone to playing their chosen race to the letter—what a drag that could destroy some real creativity—but they're special for a reason and you need to at least know what they're like and have some idea why your guy is different from the rest. To be fair, if you're really into playing with the group, you should very much want to tell that story. If you just want to fly over combat, demand to see the maps to lord over tactics, and generally just crap on stuff, get ready for the bola bow (to be honest, the crapping on stuff is usually hilarious and often the saving grace of a misused flying race).

 

[iserith]

Appreciate the examples. And yes, all races can be played well and to the delight of a group if the player isn't a problem. I've managed with similar tactics and there seems to be some kind of truce between the group now on what is expected. We're also in a swamp, as it happens, and various forms of cover and challenges to flying has finally been begrudgingly accepted, in large part because he still gets a lot of attention. But make no mistake, it got silly for a long awhile and old friends were under a lot of strain. Same thing with my other group. I was open to their expressing the more superhero aspects of the race, but it became a problem. Two out of two and the players had very similar personalities.

I feel like I'm repeating myself and I'm sorry if I am, but that was enough sample size for me and I don't care to deal with that again. Still, maybe an underlined caveat is more sensible than a ban in the chance I run across a player like the one in your current campaign who gets the game better: if you're going to be picking an Aarokocra as your character's race, please sell me on the idea and tell me why you want to play one. If you can't you can't, because I know what you're trying to do and nah.

Lastly, I never would hold anyone to playing their chosen race to the letter—what a drag that could destroy some real creativity—but they're special for a reason and you need to at least know what they're like and have some idea why your guy is different from the rest. To be fair, if you're really into playing with the group, you should very much want to tell that story. If you just want to fly over combat, demand to see the maps to lord over tactics, and generally just crap on stuff, get ready for the bola bow (to be honest, the crapping on stuff is usually hilarious and often the saving grace of a misused flying race).

Based on what you've said before, you might benefit from curating the list of available races for a given adventure or campaign based on setting lore (which can be a reflection of your own preferences combined with some kind of in-world logic). I just don't think banning them to solve for the problem you describe is the best solution since it doesn't actually address the underlying problem.

 

[el-remmen]

I give out advantage a lot more often than my PCs ever ask if they can get it.

 

[ECMO3]

I have not experienced too many problems and with TCE if Rogue wants advantage she can usually just take the bonus action and get it.

 

[ad_hoc]

Enjoyable thread. And yeah, it's a balance. In the case I described, it's more about power-gaming and how it hurts the session. I govern so that the game maintains its joy, and that includes allowing a fair amount of meta gaming and conversation. I do the thing where, if you've picked a lock on a dungeon door two times in a row, you no longer have to roll for lock picking because you've mastered these doors (unless you run into a different kind of door). I wave away all sorts of minor stuff to keep momentum, as I find pacing important to the enjoyment over hard adherence to the rules and instilling fear. Again, balance. But then along comes a guy with strap-on wings who essentially tries to avoid playing. That's not skilled playing, that's him against the DM – a DM who just spent several hours putting something together for him to enjoy and who understands what it means to, once again, maintain balance and isn't out to kill you.

I agree with running things this way but just picking something out here. Not sure if you meant this but it actual is in the rules that locks can just be picked. The DM can just decide that the character succeeds.

When I DM any character with proficiency in thieves tools automatically picks any mundane lock unless there is something dramatic that can occur like triggering a trap.